A/HRC/14/46 orders an action that would violate national law or international human rights law. These laws also establish procedures to hold individuals to account for such violations. 23. States ensure that employees of intelligence services are held to account for any violations of the law by providing and enforcing sanctions for particular offences. This serves to promote respect for the rule of law and human rights within intelligence services. Many national laws regulating intelligence services include specific sanctions for employees who violate these laws or other applicable provisions of national and international law.73 Given that many of the activities of intelligence services take place in secret, criminal offences (perpetrated by employees) may not be detected by the relevant prosecutorial authorities. Therefore, it is good practice for national law to require the management of intelligence services to refer cases of possible criminal wrongdoing to prosecutorial authorities.74 In cases of serious human rights violations, such as torture, States are under an international legal obligation to prosecute members of the intelligence services.75 The criminal responsibility of employees of intelligence services may be engaged not only through their direct participation in the given activities, but also if they order or are otherwise complicit in such activities..76 Practice 17. Members of intelligence services are legally obliged to refuse superior orders that would violate national law or international human rights law. Appropriate protection is provided to members of intelligence services who refuse orders in such situations. 24. It is good practice for national laws to require members of intelligence services to refuse orders that they believe would violate national law or international human rights law.77 While this provision is more common in laws regulating armed forces, several States have included it in statutes regulating their intelligence services.78 A requirement for members of intelligence services to refuse illegal orders is an important safeguard against possible human rights abuses, as well as against incumbent Governments ordering intelligence services to take action to further or protect their own interests. It is a wellestablished principle of international law that individuals are not absolved of criminal responsibility for serious human rights violations by virtue of having been requested to undertake an action by a superior.79 Hence, to avoid individual criminal liability, members of intelligence services are required to refuse to carry out any orders that they should understand to be manifestly unlawful. This underlines the importance of human rights training for intelligence officers because they need to be aware of their rights and duties under international law (see practice 19). In order to promote an environment in which human rights abuses are not tolerated, States provide legal protections against reprisals for members of intelligence services who refuse to carry out illegal orders.80 The obligation to 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 GE.10-13410 Croatia (footnote 2), arts. 88–92; Romania (footnote 15), arts. 20–22, Argentina (footnote 2), art. 42; Bulgaria (footnote 15), art. 88(1), 90 & 91; South Africa (footnote 23), arts. 18, 26. Canada (footnote 6), sect. 20 (2–4). Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, arts. 4 and 6. Rome Statute, art. 25 (3) (b-d), Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 1. Hungary, Act on the National Security Services, sect. 27; Lithuania (footnote 9), art. 18; ECOWAS Code of Conduct, art. 16. Bosnia and Herzegovina (footnote 6), art. 42; South Africa (footnote 23), art. 11 (1). Rome Statute, art. 33; Geneva Conventions I–IV; Commission on Human Rights (footnote 65), principle 27; see also Lithuania (footnote 9), art. 18. Bosnia and Herzegovina (footnote 6), art. 42. 15